Partly allowed

Vasanth Kumar v. the Manager

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2022MFA/2210/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal partly, enhancing the total compensation from Rs.239,800 to Rs.282,680. The court increased compensation for loss of amenities and loss of future income, upheld the notional income assessment, and modified the interest rate applicable to the enhanced amount.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation enhanced to Rs.282,680/-; loss of amenities increased to Rs.50,000/- and loss of future income to Rs.94,080/-; Respondents 1 & 3 directed to deposit 50% each with interest.

Vasanth Kumar Vs the Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MFA No. 2210 OF 2020(MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VASANTH KUMAR S/O APPAJIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O BUVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573201

¶9

...APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV.)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. SRINIVAS TAKIS COMPLEX 1ST FLOOR, MARKET P B NO.54, DHARWAD-580001 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VENKTESHWARA BUILDING B M ROAD, HASSAN-573201.

¶13

¶14

2 . NAGARAJ GUDDAPPA KALAKOTE

¶15

MAJOR SHIVAJI NAGARA 2ND CROSS HAVERI-581110.

¶16

3 . LAKSHMIKANTH S/O RAMAYYA MAJOR KUNDURU PALLYA TIPTUR TALUK

¶17

TUMKURU DISTRICT-572101.

¶18

4 . HDFC ERGO INSURANCE COM.LTD.

¶19

1^ST FLOOR CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-52.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.MOHAN KUMAR T, ADV. FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 & R4 DISPENSED WITH: NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:30.04.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.3/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.4.2018 passed by MACT, Hassan in MVC 3/2013.

¶27

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 8.11.2012 when the claimant along with his friends were proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-6-L-1863 near K.B.Cross Road, Gowrishankara Chemical Factory, Turuvekere, at that time, the driver of jeep bearing No.KA-27-M2480 was driving the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶28

¶29

The claimant filed a petition under Section

¶30

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶31

On service of notice, the respondents appeared through counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶32

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

¶33

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Abdul Basheer was examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P58. On behalf of the

¶34

¶35

respondents, two witnesses were examined as RWs-1 and 2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.239,800/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and directed the United Insurance Co. Ltd. and respondent No.3, owner to deposit the compensation amount along with interest equally. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶36

The learned counsel for the claimant has

¶37

raised the following contentions:

¶38

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was doing business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken the notional income as merely as Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶39

Secondly, the claimant has examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that

¶40

¶41

the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 22% to particular limb. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 7%, which is on the lower side.

¶42

Thirdly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 6 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

¶43

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶44

¶45

Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, he has not produced any documents to establish his income. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the claimant notionally.

¶46

Secondly, the doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 22% to particular limb. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 7%.

¶47

Thirdly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.

¶48

Fourthly, in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ms.Joyeeta Bose and others –v- Venkateshan.V and others (MFA

¶49

¶50

5896/2018 and connected matters disposed of on 24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶51

Respondent No.3, owner is served and

¶52

unrepresented.

¶53

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶54

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶55

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing No.KA-6-L-1863 and jeep bearing No.KA-27M-2480 by its drivers.

¶56

The claimant claims that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He has not produced any documents to prove his income. Therefore, in the

¶57

¶58

absence of proof of income, notional income has to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2012, the notional income has to be taken at Rs.7,000/- p.m.

¶59

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained pain and difficult in movement left hip joint dislocated and fracture of left patella bone. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 22% to particular limb. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, the Tribunal has rightly taken the whole body disability at 7%. The claimant is aged about 35 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘16’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.94,080/-

¶60

¶61

(Rs.7,0001216*7%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶62

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 3 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7,000*3 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶63

The claimant was treated as inpatient for more than 6 days in the hospital and thereafter, has received further treatment. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also undergone surgery. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment and he has to suffer with the disability stated by the doctor throughout his life. Considering the same, I am inclined to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of 'loss of amenities' from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.

¶64

¶65

Considering the nature of injuries, the

¶66

compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶67

Thus, the claimant is entitled to the

¶68

following compensation:

¶69

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	50,000	50,000
Medical expenses	32,600	32,600
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	35,000	35,000
Loss of income during laid up period	15,000	21,000
Loss of amenities	40,000	50,000
Loss of future income	67,200	94,080
Total	239,800	282,680

¶70

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶71

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation

¶72

of Rs.282,680/-.

¶73

¶74

The respondent No.1, United India Insurance Company Limited and respondent No.3, Mr.Lakshmikanth are directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 8% p.a. (enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a.) at the rate of 50% each, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of

¶75

this judgment .

¶76

In view of the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by this Court, the claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 558 days in filing the appeal.

¶77

Sd/JUDGE

¶78

Vasanth Kumar v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasanth Kumar v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Basavaraj Vs Mohammed Rafeeq

Sri Puttaraju Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.

Mohammed Ali Afthab Vs Abdul Azeem

The Branch Manager Vs Shankar T

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs N Kadirappa

Manjunath Vs the Branch Manager